Lesley Tweddle <LTWEDDLE@ACS.AUC.EUN.EG> writes:

> Interesting contribution from Mr Henderson, as usual, made me
> think though: who _reads_ the print journals?  Nobody.  They all
> end up as unbound sheets, printed on one side, too - and to the
> great dilapidation of the originals.  The cost of either repairing
> or replacing photocopy-battered volumes is one of those hidden
> expenses that nobody quite knows.

Yes, but I would not agree that nobody reads print journals. Many
studies have observed considerable reading and browsing
before and without making copies. Library use of journals includes
researchers looking for articles they had read in their personal
subscription copies and then discarded before fully realizing their
relevance and usefulness. Electronic formats so far tend to
frustrate such browsing and reading. Databases are criticized
for failure to provide comperhensive coverage. Full-text searching
can also be unsatisfactory. Interviews with chemists indicated
they prefer to browse the illustrations to locate items of interest.
See "User acceptance of electronic journals," by Linda Stewart in
COLLEGE & RESEARCH LIBRARIES 57,4 (July 1996):339-349.
The article concludes that improvements must be made in the
areas of portability, comfort, convenient access, permanence
and serendipity.

>         I have never even _used_ an electronic journal, over here
> in Cairo: our connect time is something awful; but people certainly
> want them.  My impression is that academic faculty, who seem to be
> the main group we try to please, experience satisfaction with a
> library in direct relation to how seldom they actually have to go
> into it.  This may very well be because they are overworked and
> don't have time to leave their desks.  Just like librarians really.
> They want e-journals, probably, for that reason.  The costing gets
> more and more complicated!

With adequate financial support, your library would have all the latest
attractions. This would include remote access to public catalogs,
online databases, and e-journals. Remote patrons could request
photocopies or print them at their workstations. It won't happen without
money.  See the eloquent letter by Janet Webster, representing nearly
300 technical libraries, in LIBRARY JOURNAL 122,4 (March 1, 1997):8.
She wonders how  libraries can go electronic when they lack funds for
essentials in print.

The evidence supporting Webster's question is considerable. It
indicates that more resources, not less, are needed to develop
and maintain electronic solutions. It is also clear that technology
can only provide conduits. With great respect for the power and
usefulness of technology,  I say it cannot make sense of scattered
and chaotic research findings without a substantial investment of
human resources. That is the job of librarians and publishers that
is so poorly understood -- and perhaps envied -- by bureaucrats
and others who compete with libraries for money.

One new theory is that library research should become a separate
task, done for its own sake. Task forces at McGill University have
engaged in evaluating the "scientific evidence" on subjects such
as "whiplash associated disorders." One example began by
screening over 10,000 citations. Teams of specialists then read
about 400 articles. Less than 70 were accepted as relevant and
having scientific merit. The resulting monograph defined past and
future research on this topic. (SPINE Supplement 20,8S April 15,
1995)

Technology, once you have acquired it, is at risk, according to K.C.
Green 1997 National Survey of Information Technology in Higher
Education.  "State officials may be tempted to reallocate technology
dollars for other purposes, similar to the way campuses too often
raid the library's book budget when money is tight." (Campus
Computing Project, POB 261242, Encino CA 91426-1242)

Danny Jones <jones@briscoent.uthscsa.edu> points out

> In case you have not seen it, I suggest you also see the Red Sage
> Project Final Report [http://www.springer-ny.com/press/redsage].  While
> trying to put a positive spin on it, they have to mention that "After 3
> years of significant hardware and maintenance costs UCSF concluded that
> storage at their institution was not practical."

My recommendation is to reform the "research overhead" formulas for
libraries. It would make sense to tie this "reimbursement"  to the
general productivity of research rather than university population and
specific grants. Library collections at the top universities provide
resources that support R&D unconnected with local campus research
and grants. Certainly they also support proposals. Many library
advocates feel libraries need a "protected share" of the total budget
somewhere around six percent of total general and education
expenditures as calculated in the United States.

Research and education begin with information and well-informed
scientists and scholars. If their information resources are outdated
and impoverished, how good can their work-product be? When will
the folks who give the grants and pay the tuitions wake up?

Albert Henderson, Editor, PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY
70244.1532@compuserve.com